|
What is the rough electricity cost of a block? Hopefully less than its USD equivalent...
|
|
|
|
The only lesson you taught the community was that you are not a reliable business partner.
No, I'm pretty sure if anyone is learning a lesson right now, it's the loud mouths who were attacking Pirate investors for being "ignorant". I guess they too are getting a dose of their own medicine! Now I get it. Brilliant. |
|
|
|
Now that we've given a scammer tag to a man after just a few hours of his even being able to verify that he indeed lost a crazy bet (a man who was probably sleeping at the time by the way), perhaps we should move on to something more significant.
Where's the revolution going next? Mesh networks? Insinuating itself (brilliantly) amongst the big established credit card companies in the fashion of BitInstant? Bitcoin banks with multisig?
As much as some might hate to admit it, it's gonna be someone like Matthew and decidedly not someone like Pirate that pushes Bitcoin forward...if you can't see the difference between a real scammer who profited off of others and what Matthew did, or think they are somehow equivalent, I suggest you think carefully. Most grown ups can see the difference...and no one really believes something that is too good to be true, much less act or rely upon it...
Good day all.
Bold added for emphasis, you should at least do a modicum of research before making a post like this IMO. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173889#msg1173889He was awake and provided the rope with which the scamming noose was formed. I hadn't seen this. This is interesting...gonna have to think about this... Addendum: thought about it. And it's brilliant. Matthew turned a large group of people who were claiming with certainty that pirate was a scammer and anyone investing with him an idiot into people who bought hook, line and sinker his own equally silly scheme...Pretty funny. Childish. But still funny. Anyhow, I'm hoping mesh networks take off. I do see a need for banks with multisig to protect those that need it. I hope our point of sale merchant services guys can crack the market. I'm totally gonna get a BitInstant credit card. I hope our devs can get the size of the blockchain down... I still see the future as bright. Addendum 2: I confess to using my iPhone for this. And not having read all the info available at the time of my OP. I've only got so much time in a day. |
|
|
|
|
I don't doubt the creative resiliency of the clever. I'm sure there will be people from ham radio heroes to members of the civil air patrol broadcasting/distributing copies of the block chain...
|
|
|
|
+1
Does pirate have the scammer tag yet?
I think I will have to leave the forums for a while if every thread derails to the topic of either pirate or mnw before the third post even though the first post explicitly says "let's move on to something else".back on topic: I think the next big thing for bitcoin is the collapse of fiat currency and the banking cartel. Until then, we better get our shit together and be ready to deliver sound money, I don't wanna have to pay stuff in silver coins or trust some central authority with the value of our accounting units ever again. And who will run the internet for you when fiat collapses? That's a valid point. If fiat collapses quickly, much of our public infrastructure will stop working...we need an orderly transition in order for Bitcoin to have value...we need a minimum connectedness to keep Bitcoin running... |
|
|
|
Scammers will destroy bitcoin before the establishment even notice it exists.
Scammers will educate people that the new system is unlike the old one and the rules are quite a bit different. That education process is now ongoing, and no, it won't destroy Bitcoin  If anything, the educated ones will move to Litecoin and won't repeat their mistakes again. This process might need a few more iterations, but we will get there eventually. Im not interested in funding scammers any longer. If you use bitcoin thats basically what you are doing. Pirate has 500 000 btc Im not interested in making him the new Rockefeller. This is straight up baloney. The only people funding scam artists are the inept vocal minority. There are plenty of legitimate transactions which happen every day that you are oblivious to, because no one bothers to make ten new threads telling everyone that they've had a successful transaction. The properties of Bitcoin that make it a desirable currency for scam artists are also properties that make it desirable for regular folks who value privacy. So, if it's working for the bad guys, and apparently it is working quite well, it's also working for the good guys. If you want charge backs, which is the best defense against the scam artist, and one that the user pays for, why are you using Bitcoin in the first place? Bitcoin requires the user to be responsible. Period. Don't worry. Some bright people will realize that some folks are incapable of protecting themselves. So they will create a service that allows charge backs, and charge everyone a fee. Perhaps it already exists in Coinbase? So Bitcoin will have come full circle, and instead of "funding scam artists" the inept will be "funding middlemen" just like they did before Bitcoin. Except, savvy users will still be able to transact without the middlemen, funding no one except the person the funds were originally intended for. +1. Insightful. |
|
|
|
No funds changed hands.
Obviously folks on this board have a lot of choice words for him but scammer does not seem to fit if we are defining the term scammer as someone who is fraudulently in possession of someone else's good or funds as a result of a trade or deal in which one party did not uphold their end of the agreement. "Possession of funds or goods" being the operative term.
That is the most ridiculous requirement. So if I asked you to make a logo and then didn't pay you I shouldn't get a scammer tag? No funds changed hands (even though that is the entire problem). What if you and I agreed to a CFD so I could hedge my businesses exposure and the price of BTC skyrocketed so you decide to not honor it. Once again no funds changed hands. How about keep it simple: "If you make an agreement and break it you are a scammer". I'll give you a $100,000,000,000,000,000,000 if you can spell Mississippi backwards... ...awaiting scammer tag... |
|
|
|
No funds changed hands.
Obviously folks on this board have a lot of choice words for him but scammer does not seem to fit if we are defining the term scammer as someone who is fraudulently in possession of someone else's good or funds as a result of a trade or deal in which one party did not uphold their end of the agreement. "Possession of funds or goods" being the operative term.
No funds changed hands...as far as we are aware. Lets take a lesson from Matthew and not rush to judgement. That said, I'm betting no money changed into his hands. |
|
|
|
AAhhaahaha....SCAM. Please show where money switched hands, please. Two words: detrimental reliance. People smart enough to know the term should be smart enough to never have gambled on pirate or rely upon a bet from this guy on the Internet to hedge against the crime they opened themselves up to. |
|
|
|
You guys are taking this way too far.
Matthew welched on a silly bet, to try and prove a point. You guys are treating him as if he TOOK MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKETS.
Considering how relaxed most people have been, in regards to Trendon Shavers aka Pirateat40 (causing most of my frustration) I find Matthew's situation to be a bit 'scape-goatish' under the circumstances.
Does Matthew really deserve to be punished to the extent he currently is being punished ?
There are far more people on this forum that have done far worse and still don't seem to have a scammer tag or their names dragged through the mud and THEY ACTUALLY LOST PEOPLE'S MONEY. Nothing was lost in the 'Matthew' situation, right ?
People made their bet because Matt told them to hedge for a pirate default when they could have sold their debt at 75% when the bet started. They did in fact lose money because of this. Stop trying to explain this away. He is a scamming fuck. Period. Not trying to explain it away. I'm trying to show that precisely this type of reasoning is childish. |
|
|
|
I have listened to it. It's what makes me think he's a decent guy. He sure picked a foolish bet, but then again there were many people gambling in pirate...equally foolish. But Mathews point is well taken...it reminds me of the people calling Casascius an idiot when he made a typo on his first series coins...people who hadn't actually done something for the community...(not that I've done much) |
|
|
|
|
Now that we've given a scammer tag to a man after just a few hours of his even being able to verify that he indeed lost a crazy bet (a man who was probably sleeping at the time by the way), perhaps we should move on to something more significant.
Where's the revolution going next? Mesh networks? Insinuating itself (brilliantly) amongst the big established credit card companies in the fashion of BitInstant? Bitcoin banks with multisig?
As much as some might hate to admit it, it's gonna be someone like Matthew and decidedly not someone like Pirate that pushes Bitcoin forward...if you can't see the difference between a real scammer who profited off of others and what Matthew did, or think they are somehow equivalent, I suggest you think carefully. Most grown ups can see the difference...and no one really believes something that is too good to be true, much less act or rely upon it...
Good day all.
|
|
|
|
Scammer tag has been given to Matthew
Now that he has a scammer tag, he doesn't need to pay. Brilliant. |
|
|
|
Matthew committed fraud, plain and simple. While I'm personally only disappointed that I'm not getting 400 BTC, others used this bet as their main method of hedging against Pirate or made other investment decisions based on this bet because they trusted Matthew. Matthew has demonstrated that he is unworthy of anyone's trust. I guess I was right the first time. I have no confidence in [Matthew]'s sense of morality, and I will never trade with him.
People give pirate 3 weeks to repay money he actually took (and he doesn't) while people give Matthew 3 hours to pay a bet he says he reserved the right to cancel.... People are too gullible. I'm sorry. This is all so silly. We are supposed to be engaged in a revolution, and it's come to _this_??? |
|
|
|
In all honestty though, I actually feel VIOLATED.
It's as if Matthew reached into my pocket and stole the Bitcoins right out from under me. This couldn't have come at a worse time, as I already spent the Bitcoins that I had planned to win, so in essence, he's not only a Scammer, but also a thief. Matthew stole my bitcoins.
Not wise. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin -- stolen with impunity since 2010...
|
|
|
|
Well, so be it.
I for one would LOVE to see everyone's bet money, waiting to pay Matthew.
I would also LOVE to see who has WHAT at stake, out of everyone commenting here.
Most of the people that took the bet with Matthew couldn't pay on the spot, even if they wanted to.
Most of the outspoken people, on the Pirate situation, don't even have an iron in the Pirate Fire......
PATHETIC.
I'm surprised all those people lost money and no one has the FBI on pirates tail...it's a crime across many state borders I'm sure! Oh, and I only put up BTC5...not because I couldn't have bet 100x more, but I felt guilty taking advantage of someone who seems a bit idealistic, naive, and mathematically inept...but generally a darn decent fella who happens to get stuff done for Bitcoin... |
|
|
|
I honestly feel bad for Matthew.
I understand what he was trying to accomplish with this, but I fear that it is blowing up in his face. I commend him for trying to shut everyone up, but he ends up carrying the flag alone.
If it comes down to everyone getting paid except for me, I would have strong reservations in regards to telling the truth about me being paid, rather, out-right lying to protect Matthew.
He is putting TOO MUCH on the line for simply ideals.
I respect Matthew, but he doesn't deserve this.
I wouldn't worry. I doubt anyone is getting paid...except maybe those with the best chance of prosecuting pirate. |
|
|
|
|
What if everyone that profited gave money back?
|
|
|
|
I think BitInstant didn't do anything so terrible. Because everyone knows there never was a real extortion threat, BitInstant doesn't look bad for offering to help out in jest.
This. Bitinstant didn't do this for Romney - they did it for all the tens of thousands of people who are now researching Bitcoins after reading the article about the attempted extortion, and are wondering how to easily acquire Bitcoins for themselves. Read the latter portion of Erik's quote: Not only that, we’ll also show you how to safely use a Bitcoin wallet, back up and encrypt it, and make payments. We’ll even set you up with a Bitcoin app on your iPhone! You’ll be a Bitcoin expert in no time! He makes the business sound incredibly helpful to newbies. Which is exactly who will be reading the article, and exactly who will end up purchasing Bitcoins through Bitinstant because of it. Even though he is addressing Romney in the quote, he is really addressing all of the people who have just heard about Bitcoin for the first time. Oh, and does everyone realize that both presidential candidates now know full well what Bitcoin is?  +1 We should be thanking them for turning something bad for Bitcoin into something that could actually help Bitcoin grow...the general public now has something to read from our perspective when they google this Romney stuff... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
